So Too You Did Unto Me

"Donald" of All Deliberate Speed, poses an excellent question.  Namely, should one's career choices reflect one's ethics?  Here's how he phrases it:

I've been wondering recently:  does my choice reflect compliance with some external responsibility, or just a personal preference?  What responsibilities do progressive, liberal individuals who claim to have a commitment to social justice owe to society, the practice of law, and their community upon entering the practice of law?

For me, the answer comes from the Bible.  A lot of people talk about what is righteous, and what is Christian.  Jesus clearly answered Donald's question (for me, anyway):

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.    

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in.    

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.    

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?    

When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?    

Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?    

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Matt. 25:34-40 (emphasis added).  In light of my understanding of Scripture, how can I devote my life working for a firm where my goal is to fight the legal claims of the "least of thee"?

What are your thoughts?  Should your personal morals (whether or not they are religion-based) compel your career choices?

UPDATE: Donald has further thoughts here.

Comments

[Ray]

This post deserves a well-considered comment, which I unfortunately don't have time to write at the moment (maybe this evening). For now:

Should your morals govern your career choice? Absolutely.

Does big=evil when it comes to law firms? Absolutely not. Morality doesn't correlate to the size of the firm, in either direction.

[JR]

"They'll quickly condemn homosexuals (though Jesus Christ never condemned homosexuality in the Bible). . . ."

Mike: I agree with you except for the quoted portion above. I hope I am not erecting a straw man, but I perceive you to be making the following argument: Since Jesus did not mention homosexuality, it must therefore not be sinful. The problem with this is that Jesus also never condemned lots of things. For example, I can't recall Christ condemning polygamy or spousal abuse. You can surely come up with a better argument than that, can't you?

[Mike]

It was a parenthetical, meant to illustrate this point: So many people who are willing to persecute those for "sins" not listed in the Bible will nonetheless shill for the wealthy and powerful.

[JR]

I was trying to decide if it was more of an illustration or a jab. We have the answer: it was more of an illustration. (Note: I take exception to the notion that homosexuality is not condemned by the Bible).

I apologize for taking the thread off topic.

[Donald]

As long as the thread IS off-topic, there's a whole lot of things that the Bible condemns, and present-day "Christians" don't make nearly as big a deal out of them as homosexuality.

Had a pepperoni pizza lately? Sinner. (Deut. 13: no pork.) Worn a jacket with elbow patches? Sinner (Lev. 19: "...nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.") Do you like those crazy Minutemen near the border? Sinner. (Lev. 19: "When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. 34The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.") Turn your daughter into a prostitute? (Oh, I guess that one's still bad.)

Point is: why do we take the Bible's view on homosexuality so much seriously than its views on eating swine or wearing garments of two types of cloth?

[JR]

Donald:

You have created a straw man. You fail to understand basic Christian doctrine.

[Mark]

Mike-

How does this make sense:

"They'll quickly condemn homosexuals ... while drawing paychecks from law firms devoted to serving the wealthy and powerful."

Are the "wealthy and powerful" supportive of homosexuals? Or are the law firms supportive of homosexuals? Is it wrong to get a paycheck from a law firm that has wealthy clients if you also condemn homosexuals? help me out here, I don't get the point you were trying to make, or at least I don't get this example of it.

[Ray]

Maybe we can all agree that Jesus didn't mention homosexuals because he had bigger fish to fry: hypocrisy and self-righteousness the two biggest.

[Aaron]

JR, that wasn't much of a rebuttal. Given your preference to remark, and for that matter discriminate, based upon certain Biblical rules, it seems fair to press you as to "why those rules and not others"? Do you press unmarried members of your organization for their histories of Onanism and fornication, and at least make them claim repentance of their lust before permitting them to serve as officers if they can no longer claim virginity, sexual abstinence, and purity of thought? Tossing out a "that's different", or "You don't understand (how I interpret) Christian doctrine" isn't a defense - it's an evasion. It's also something probably best left for more appropriate threads.

More on topic, I hope.... It is interesting to be on the plaintiff side of a lawsuit where the defendant is a well-heeled religious organization. I have yet to encounter a religious organization that does not, within the context of litigation, make its religious teachings and precepts a distant second to any approach or defense which might defeat the plaintiff's claim. That's the nature of litigation, of course, but within this specific context the hypocrisy Mike observes is hard to miss.

[Mike]

Congratulations to me for figuring out how to let a parenthetical ruin what could have otherwise been an interesting discussion.

[Chris]

Donald

Do you read the Bible? In Leviticus and Deuteronomy, God is setting down rules for the newly freed Isrealites. The word 'holiness' itself means 'set apart.' These are ceremonial laws (as opposed to moral or civil laws of God), and they are designed to teach the Israelites, who have spent generations in an extremely pagan country (Egypt), who are now in a land with seven seperate pagan peoples. The rules against interweaving different cloths, eating pork, mixing two different kinds of plants or breeding two different types of animals are there as part of the Mosaic covenant with the Jews, to teach them to stay seperate, or set apart, from the pagans around them.

As Hebrews 4 explains best, the Mosaic ceremonial covenant is done away with; those requirements have found their fulfillment in the work and life of Christ. Essentially, the Israelites of that covenant were forbidden from eating pork, and wearing arm patches, and were commanded to offer sacrifices and be circumsized. These ceremonial laws are not part of the new covenant.

Remember the book of Acts, where Peter sees a vision of animals, and God tells him to kill those animals and feed himself? Peter says, "Surely not the unclean animals!" God tells him explicitly that what was prohibited is now allowed, as part of the new covenant.

I'm a sinner, but not because I eat pork, or wear two different types of cloth. Christians are allowed to do both.

It was a nice try.

[The Jury]

"should one's career choices reflect one's ethics?"

No, I think never.

Shouldn't one's ethics be reflected in one's career choice whatever that may be? Wether presiding from a bench or scraping the droppings off one. Judge, janitor or jack-ass. If you believe what is written in the Bible what's the difference?

For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the lord, and to do it and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.

In your career choice I would recommend studying a red letter edition and the writings and teachings of Socrates. Even if you don't believe, as in my opinion there are no better writings in regards to learning techniques for winning "arguments" and leading people to the truth. The Truth is what justice is all about isn't it?

Precisely Chris.
However this is very apropos as his dream really had nothing to do with eating food per se, the dream was actually about going and dwelling amongst "unclean men" (Samaritans and the like) as is the basis of the underlying question. On the same token it's not what goes into your mouth but what comes out of it that matters.